Monthly Archives: January 2026

‘How were the unforeseen consequences of human actions and choices explored in ancient cultures – including the flawed idea that might is always right?’

Posted on by


AI – ‘Ancient cultures primarily explored the unforeseen consequences of human actions through mythology, tragedy, and philosophy, emphasizing themes of divine justice (Nemesis), the fatal flaw of pride (hubris), and the limits of human knowledge. The idea that “might is always right” was presented as a flawed, cynical view that inevitably led to downfall and chaos. 

Exploration of Unforeseen Consequences

  • Greek Tragedy: This genre was a primary vehicle for exploring how individual choices, often driven by ignorance or passion, could lead to catastrophic, unforeseen outcomes that fulfilled a predetermined fate.
  • Mythology and Divine Punishment: Myths across many cultures featured gods who enforced a cosmic order and punished mortals who transgressed their boundaries.
    • Icarus: He ignored his father’s warnings not to fly too close to the sun with his wax wings. His overambition and disregard for limits led to his sudden, fatal plunge into the sea.
    • The Tower of Babel (Abrahamic tradition): Humans united to build a tower to the heavens to “make a name for themselves,” a clear act of collective hubris. The unforeseen consequence was divine intervention, resulting in the confusion of languages and the dispersal of humanity, thwarting their original goal.
  • Environmental Awareness: The Roman writer Pliny the Elder noted in his Natural History examples where human actions, such as draining lakes or changing a river’s course, led to observable, negative climate changes in a region (e.g., loss of certain crops due to new frosts). 

The Flawed Idea that Might is Always Right

The assertion that “might is right” (kratocracy) was generally treated as a dangerous and ultimately unsustainable principle in ancient thought. 

  • Philosophical Debate (Plato and Aristotle): This idea was explicitly challenged in philosophical discourse.
    • In Plato’s Republic, the Sophist Thrasymachus argues that “justice is nothing but the interest of the stronger”. Socrates systematically counters this, arguing that true justice involves pursuing the common good and that power used merely for self-interest leads to internal and external disharmony.
    • Aristotle recognized the role of power in governance but maintained it must be directed toward the well-being of the community and the rule of law, not the arbitrary will of the strong.
  • Consequences of Tyranny: Ancient narratives often depicted the downfall of arrogant rulers and empires that relied solely on force.
    • Aeschylus’s play The Persians portrays the defeat of King Xerxes I, who embodied hubris by attempting to “bind” the Hellespont sea with chains as punishment for a storm that destroyed his fleet, a clear transgression of natural limits. His military might, presumed to be “right,” was ultimately proven fleeting against natural and divine forces.
  • The Inevitability of Moral Order: The belief was that while force might prevail temporarily, a moral or cosmic order (often personified by the goddess Nemesis, who enacted retribution) would eventually restore balance and punish those who overstepped their bounds. The might of the gods always superseded temporary human might.’ 

In other words, the ancients believed that eventually Moral Order would always prevail over the arrogance and hubris of the immoral exercise of military might – as right.

So, they believed in the inevitability of moral order.

My 2nd Q. – ‘How were Hubris and Nemesis symbolized in Ancient Art?’

AI – ‘In ancient art, Hubris was represented conceptually through mythological narratives and real-world consequences rather than a single personified figure with specific symbols. Nemesis, the goddess of divine retribution who punished hubris, was consistently personified and depicted with specific iconographic elements. 

Nemesis’s Symbolism

Nemesis was usually portrayed as a beautiful, winged goddess (symbolizing the swiftness of her vengeance) carrying several objects that represented her function of measuring and dispensing justice. 

Common symbols in her iconography included:

  • Scales or Balance: To represent the weighing and maintenance of cosmic equilibrium and justice.
  • A Sword or Scourge (whip): Symbols of her power to exact punishment and vengeance against wrongdoers.
  • A Measuring Rod (cubit ruler): Emphasizing the measuring out of fate and the enforcement of boundaries that mortals should not overstep.
  • The Wheel of Fate (sometimes on a griffin chariot): Symbolizing the cyclical nature of fortune, the constant turning of destiny, and that no one can escape their due. The griffin was a creature associated with guarding roads to salvation and was seen as an agent of Nemesis.
  • A Bridle or Rein: To “bridle vain men who roil in vain” and restrain the “frivolous insolences of mortals”.
  • A Crown adorned with stag horns:  Seen in some depictions. 

A famous example of Nemesis’s artistic representation is the statue at her sanctuary in Rhamnous, sculpted from a block of Parian marble that the overconfident Persians had brought to Greece to build their own victory monument at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BCE. 

Hubris’s Symbolism

Hubris (excessive pride or arrogance that defies the gods) was not typically personified as a singular figure in ancient art with standard attributes. Instead, it was an abstract concept or a “tragic flaw” demonstrated through the actions of characters in myths and literature. Artistic depictions illustrated the consequences of hubris through specific narrative events, such as: 

  • Icarus falling from the sky: Showing the result of ignoring divine law and overestimating human capabilities.
  • Narcissus gazing at his own reflection: A punishment for vanity and self-love, ultimately leading to his demise (and transformation into a flower).
  • The Persian defeat at Marathon: The actual event was viewed by the Greeks as a prime historical example of Nemesis punishing Persian hubris, and the creation of the Nemesis statue from Persian marble served as a permanent artistic and symbolic reminder of this moral. 

In essence, Nemesis was a specific divine figure with clear visual symbols, while Hubris was an action or attitude whose representation in art was the ensuing downfall and punishment meted out by Nemesis or the Fates.’ 

My 3rd Q. – ‘What was the sanctuary in Rhamnous?’

AI – ‘The sanctuary in Rhamnous was the most important ancient Greek sanctuary dedicated to Nemesis, the goddess of divine retribution, famously punishing hubris (excessive pride). It featured two temples—one smaller (late 6th century BC) and a larger Doric one (c. 460 BC) for Nemesis and Themis (order/law)—and housed a famous cult statue of Nemesis, believed by some to have been carved from Parian marble left by the Persians after their defeat at Marathon. 

Key Aspects of the Sanctuary:

  • Goddesses: Primarily Nemesis, linked with Themis; Nemesis delivered divine vengeance when Themis’s order was disregarded.
  • Significance: It was the principal cult center for Nemesis, a crucial deity in Greek tragedy and belief.
  • Statue: A famous cult statue of Nemesis by sculptor Agorakritos was housed in the larger temple, according to Pausanias.
  • Strategic Location: Rhamnous was a fortified town guarding important sea routes, and the sanctuary was a key religious site within its lower city.
  • Architecture: Ruins of two 5th-century BC temples remain, with the larger one exhibiting experimental Doric features. 

Why It Matters:
The Sanctuary of Nemesis was a powerful religious center, especially renowned for its connection to the downfall of arrogant invaders like the Persians, reinforcing beliefs in divine justice and the punishment of hubris.’

My 4th Q – ‘What is the Imperial Boomerang?’

AI – ‘The imperial boomerang is the concept that the repressive techniques, surveillance, and violence developed by colonial powers to control overseas territories eventually “boomerang” back and are used against marginalized populations within the colonizing country itself. Originating with writers like Aimé Césaire and Hannah Arendt, it highlights how colonies act as “laboratories” for methods of social control, like racial profiling and militarized policing, that then become normalized domestically, creating cycles of state repression at home, as seen with European fascism or modern policing tactics. Key Aspects

  • Colonialism as a Testing Ground: Empires used colonies to test new forms of counter-insurgency, surveillance (like fingerprints in India), and violence.
  • Return to the Metropole: These methods, originally designed for “foreign” populations, are later applied within the imperial center, often against minority or immigrant groups.
  • Examples:
    • Nazism: Césaire argued that European fascism was a product of colonial brutality, applied to Europeans within Europe.
    • Modern Policing: Tactics used in the French banlieues or US policing in the Philippines have been linked to domestic police practices and militarization.
  • Key Thinkers: The idea is associated with Aimé Césaire, Hannah Arendt, and Michel Foucault, who expanded on the idea of imperialism’s self-destructive potential. 

In essence, The imperial boomerang shows how the brutal tools of empire, intended for the “other,” inevitably corrupt and shape the colonizing power’s own society, turning its repressive apparatus inward.’

Se also:

‘Escaping the Prisoner’s Dilemma in Contentious Probate Disputes.’

Posted on by

Game Theory provides a framework for analysing the parties’ rational, self-interested decision-making in interdependent situations.

Even purely self-interested parties can achieve a better outcome through cooperation, i.e. settlement as a result of Mediation, than through pure competition, i.e. Litigation.

If all parties litigate aggressively, then they both ‘betray’, and thereby each incur high costs and stress, resulting in a ‘suboptimal’ outcome for everyone involved compared to a negotiated settlement.

In the context of the Mediation of a Contentious Probate dispute, ‘betraying’ might equate to litigating to the fullest extent, hoping for a big win; while ‘cooperating’ means compromising in Mediation.

Mediators must recognize that each party’s outcome depends not just on their own actions, but critically on the other parties’ decisions.

This inherent interdependence is the foundation of ‘Game Theory’, and highlights why a facilitated negotiation process is crucial.

The classic Game Theory Model is the ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ analogy.

This illustrates a scenario in which two rational, self-interested individuals choose not to cooperate, even though they would both be better off if they did.

The Mediator’s role is to help the Participants in Mediation to escape this ‘dilemma’, by creating an environment in which trust and the benefits of cooperation are clear, i.e. self-evident, making a mutually acceptable agreement more likely.

By applying Game Theory Principles, Mediators and Mediation Advocates can help ‘reframe’ a dispute from being a ‘zero-sum’ battle, into a transformative ‘collaborative problem-solving exercise’, by guiding self-interested parties toward a mutually beneficial resolution.

I am available to be appointed as a Mediator or Mediation Advocate from 1st March. To enquire about my services please contact clerks@1ec.co.uk.

For a detailed discussion of both Mediation and Mediation Advocacy, see my recent book published by the Law Society, the 2nd Edition of the Contentious Probate Handbook (2025), which is available to purchase on Amazon.

I will also discuss Game Theory Principles in my forthcoming book – ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes,’ including how a Mediator can help Participants to identify the ‘Nash Equilibrium’ in the context of their ‘Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement’ (BATNA), by showing them that continued confrontation/litigation is unlikely to yield a better result than a proposed settlement.

‘Inalienability of sovereignty through unilateral action of a foreign power.’

Posted on by

At the intersection of ‘Law’ and ‘Ethics’ in the Mediation of a Cultural Heritage Dispute lies the ‘Fiduciary Principle’ under ‘International Law’, of the ‘Inalienability of Sovereignty’ through the unilateral action of a foreign power.

This is relevant when considering the circumstances in which an artefact/antiquity was acquired, e.g. by transfer as a result of ‘Coercion’ during a period of occupation.

‘Fiduciary principles play a prominent role in the International Law of Occupation. As one leading scholar has observed, the foundational principle upon which the entire law of occupation is based is the principle of Inalienability of Sovereignty through unilateral action of a foreign power.

Accordingly, when a state establishes effective control over foreign territory, its international legal status is conceived to be that of a Trustee who exercises only temporary managerial powers until the occupation ends. …

An occupant also bears a variety of proscriptive fiduciary duties. It must respect unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. … Nor may an occupant confiscate private property, [or] destroy property without military necessity. …

Moreover the occupant serves only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, [and] real estate … belonging to the hostile state, and situated in the occupied country.

It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct, avoiding wasteful or negligent destruction of the capital value … Contrary to the rules of good husbandry. … [This principle for example obliges the occupier to protect public monuments].

For centuries, international lawyers and statesmen have endorsed the principle that a State’s Sovereign authority is held in Trust for the benefit of its people.’

(Criddle, Paul B., Miller, Paul B., & Robert H. Sitkoff , Editors (2019) The Oxford Handbook of Fiduciary Law, Oxford University Press, pp.356 & 358-9).

I will examine and discuss this foundational legal principle of ‘Civilization’ in my forthcoming book – the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’

This also bears upon the availability of remedies in the English High Court based upon the Tort of ‘Conversion’ (which protects property rights), and ‘Constructive Trust’.

Under the English Law principle of ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’, a person cannot transfer a better title to goods than they possess.

Thus, a thief cannot:

(i) acquire legal ownership of stolen property; and

(ii) pass valid title to a buyer, even if the buyer is innocent and pays good money.

The rule operates subject to statutory exceptions which exist to protect bona fide purchasers in specific and limited commercial situations.

Conversion is a strict liability Tort.

So, the state of mind, knowledge or intention of the defendant, e.g. an Art Dealer/Auction House, is irrelevant.

For a detailed discussion of the Law of Constructive Trusts, see my book, the ‘Contentious Trusts Handbook’, published by the Law Society in 2020.

For a rigorous commentary on the Law of Conversion, see the 3rd Edition of ‘The Law of Personal Property’ by Michael Bridge, Louie Gullifer, Kelvin Low and Gerard McMeel (2021)(Sweet & Maxwell).

In my forthcoming book, I will be writing a detailed section about the burden of proof (i.e. about the elements of these claims which must be proved in order to win at Trial), and litigation risks, including potential limitation defences, and in the case of Equitable Remedies such as Constructive Trust – laches.